5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Kriva Palanka.
6.  The applicant worked as a salesperson in a food store run by company T. (“the employer”). In 1994 goods went missing from the store. As the person responsible for the loss could not be identified, on 31 January 1995 the employer requested that the employees compensate the losses sustained. The amount which each employee was asked to pay was calculated in proportion to their working hours with the employer. Several employees, including the applicant, were required to pay 115,682 Macedonian denars (the equivalent of 1,880 euros (EUR)).
7.  On 7 March 1995 the applicant and nine colleagues brought a civil action against the employer seeking annulment of the payment requests. On 26 April 1995 the Kriva Palanka Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) accepted the claim. On 17 April 1997 the Skopje Court of Appeal quashed that judgment due to the lower court’s errors in fact and law. On 26 March 1999 the Skopje Court of Appeal again ordered the re-examination of the case, because the payment requests had not been enforceable and binding on the claimants. Accordingly, it found that the claimants had lacked a legal interest in pursuing the claim. On 31 May 1999 the first-instance court dismissed the claim for lack of legal interest. That judgment was quashed on appeal, as it had failed to state whether there had been any procedural flaws regarding the payment requests. On 15 May 2003 the first-instance court accepted the claim and annulled the employer’s payment requests. On 2 March 2005 the Skopje Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and rejected the claim as inadmissible (недозволена). It found that the claimants had not been entitled, under section 138 of the Employment Act 1993 as in force at the time (see paragraph 22 below), to seek the annulment of the payment requests, but rather that the employer instead had the right to seek, under section 101 of the same Act (see paragraph 21 below), a court order that the claimants reimburse the losses sustained. In those proceedings, the court would assess whether there was any damage attributable to any employee.
8.  As the first-instance court stated in a letter of 3 September 2010, there was no evidence that the judgment was served on the applicant or her legal representative. The applicant asserted that she had learnt about it in February 2007. The Government did not present any evidence to disprove that allegation.
9.  On 21 November 1995 the employer brought a civil action seeking a judgment ordering the applicant to pay the amount specified in the payment request. Initially, the first-instance court rejected the claim. Subsequently, it dismissed the employer’s claim on three occasions due to lack of evidence that any responsibility could be attributed to the applicant. All of those judgments were quashed on appeal by the Skopje Court of Appeal.
10.  On 3 April 2006 the first-instance court rendered its most recent judgment in the matter, in which it again dismissed the employer’s claim. The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows:
“... the loss was either the result of goods going missing from the store ... or money not being put in the cash register each day. Since [the employer] did not identify the person responsible for the losses, it requested that the employees [reimburse its losses] in an amount corresponding to their working hours in 1994 ... no (internal) proceedings were carried out in order (that the employer) identify the person responsible for the losses sustained or to establish disciplinary [liability] or (any) other breaches of the working rules ...”
11.  The court further relied on section 98 of the Employment Act 1993, as then in force (see paragraph 19 below), and stated that:
“The above-cited provision suggests that the Employment Act endorses the principle of individual responsibility ... which requires not only identification of the employee who caused the damage, but also (determination of) responsibility for damage caused intentionally or negligently ... In the present case and on the basis of the admitted evidence, it is established that criminal proceedings were instituted against the store’s responsible person in relation to the loss sustained ... the criminal proceedings finally ended with an acquittal (of the responsible person), thus leaving two disputed issues unresolved – who caused [the damage] and whether any responsibility could be attributed to [the perpetrator] ... It appears that [the payment request] and [the employer’s] claim are based on the principle of objective responsibility, which runs counter to the above-cited [statutory] provisions ... [the employer] did not present any evidence that [the applicant] contributed to the loss or was responsible for it ... consequently, the court’s view is that section 98(1) of the Employment Act is not applicable [in the applicant’s case] ...”
12.  On 23 November 2006 the Skopje Court of Appeal overturned the judgment and accepted the employer’s claim. It stated, amongst other things, the following:
“According to this court, [the employer] correctly claims in the appeal that [the payment request] was lawful. On the correctly established facts, the first-instance court wrongly applied section 98(1) and (3) of the Employment Act ... Section 98(3) of the Employment Act, according to which all employees are regarded as responsible and should compensate damage in equal proportions when it is impossible to establish any individual responsibility, applies in the present case ... Since several employees caused the damage, they are jointly responsible for it ... none of the employees, including [the applicant], alerted the responsible persons [working for the employer] to the fact that goods or money were going missing from the store, or that the responsible person (against whom criminal proceedings were instituted) had taken goods for himself or others without paying the price, or that he had misappropriated part of the daily takings etc. ... It appears that [the applicant] contributed to the damage. Had she, as well as the other employees, reacted in a timely manner by reporting the store’s responsible person, they would have prevented the damage ... The responsibility of other employees lies in their failure to undertake actions to prevent the damage. Had they reacted in a timely manner to the unlawful activities of the store’s responsible person, he would have been prevented from further breaking the working rules. That would have also stopped the losses.”
13.  The applicant was ordered to pay, in addition to the principal debt (EUR 1,880), statutory interest calculated from the date of submission of the claim. That decision was served on the applicant on 4 January 2007.
14.  On 14 May 2008 the Supreme Court rejected an appeal on points of law brought by the applicant as inadmissible, finding that the claim value was below the statutory threshold specified in section 372(2) of the Civil Proceedings Act 2005 (see paragraph 24 below).
15.  The applicant submitted copies of several judgments of the Skopje Court of Appeal in which it had upheld the first-instance court’s judgments dismissing identical claims brought by the employer against the applicant’s colleagues. Those decisions were taken between September 2004 and March 2006 (Gž.br.4295/04; Gž.br.6708/04; Gž.br.6709/04; Gž.br.6711/04; and Gž.br.1544/06). The relevant parts of two of these judgments read as follows:
“... In the court’s view, the first-instance court correctly held that the Employment Act employs the principle of individual responsibility ... which requires identification of the person who caused the damage and [an assessment of] whether it was caused intentionally or negligently ... A person’s responsibility under section 98 of the Employment Act cannot be assumed, but rather should be established in appropriate proceedings ... Criminal proceedings instituted against the store’s responsible person finally ended with his acquittal. Thus [the criminal proceedings] did not resolve two contested issues, namely who caused [the damage] and whether any responsibility could be attributed ... On the basis of the admitted evidence, the first-instance court established that the payment request was based on the principle of objective responsibility, which runs counter to the Employment Act ... The first-instance court correctly concluded that the defendant had not contributed to the losses or that any responsibility could be attached to him ... The Appeal Court has examined [the employer’s] arguments that the employees, including the defendant, were responsible because they had failed to exercise their working duties properly and had allowed the company to sustain damage, but it nevertheless dismisses them as unfounded ... The employees reported to the store’s responsible person and available evidence suggests that there were irregularities in his work ... accordingly the defendant cannot be held responsible, all the more so since [the employer] did not institute any proceedings against the defendant or other store employees.” (Gž.br.4295/04 of 29 September 2004)
“As claimed [in the appeal], the defendant’s responsibility was based on the fact that she knew about the workplace irregularities and the damage, but she failed to undertake any action in order to prevent the losses. This court has examined [those] allegations and finds that they are unfounded ... employees reported to the store’s responsible person and the available evidence suggests that there were irregularities in his work. The [first-instance] court correctly interpreted section 98 of the Employment Act, under which the principle of individual responsibility applies to damage caused to an employer ... In the present case, criminal proceedings were instituted against the store’s responsible person in relation to the losses sustained. They finally ended with his acquittal ... thus [the criminal proceedings] did not identify who was responsible for the losses. On the other hand, it was not established whether the defendant or any other salesperson was responsible for the losses ... the [employer] did not present any evidence to prove the defendant’s individual responsibility...” (Gž.br.6708/04 of 21 January 2005)
16.  The remaining judgments (Gž.br.6709/04 dated 14 January 2005; Gž.br.6711/04 dated 21 January 2005 and Gž.br.1544/06 dated 8 March 2006) of the Skopje Court of Appeal contained identical reasoning as above regarding the first-instance court’s findings that section 98 of the then Employment Act required, in the circumstances of the case, the application of the principle of individual responsibility; that no internal proceedings had been carried out, nor had the employer presented any evidence to prove any individual responsibility; that no responsibility could be attributed to any defendant for any alleged omissions; and that the principle of objective responsibility could not apply.
17.  By a decision of 5 December 2001, the Supreme Court accepted the employer’s appeal on points of law in an identical case brought against a colleague of the applicant. That decision was given under the statutory rules concerning the Supreme Court’s competence ratione valoris provided for in the Civil Proceedings Act of 1977 (see paragraph 24 below). The first-instance court’s decision in that case was given on 30 September 1997 (Rev.br.50/99).